Knight, in Anderson's-place, Corn wall-road. The second time was at his house in Cursitor-street, when she told me she invited Mr. Knight's daughter and my sister to take tea with her, and she asked me to accompany them. The third time I saw Mrs. Jeffs was when I accompanied Knight's son and his sister to the house in Montagu-place. We saw Mrs. Jeffs upon that occasion but for a short time. I never saw Mrs. Jeffs after the month of July last. Mrs. Jeffs, Knight, and I went together to Montagu-place, when he went into the house, I believe, to ask for money. I saw her upon that occasion, which was some time in last July, and I never saw her after. I took the name of Edwards to avoid detection, know ing that I had unfortunately rendered myself liable to the law, in consequence of what I had done at Mr. Duncomb's. Under such circumstances, I should be more than insane to have gone to Montague-place, where most likely I should have been refused admit tance. As to my dress, and the circumstances of suspicion attached to the coat, I am enabled on the clearest proofs to answer that part of the charge. Mrs. Williams has a son employed by a surgeon who resides in Blackfriars-road. That gentleman gave him a coat which was damaged, and the stains upon which were said to be occasioned by blood. In my distress I borrowed this coat, and unfortunately for me, the very worst construction was put upon a circumstance purely accidental. In the same way the blood upon the shirt collar was made use of as a proof against me, and the waistcoat was said also to be stained with blood. As to the stain upon the collar, what becomes

of it when it is proved in evidence that I cut my thumb. So little did the circumstance of cutting my thumb occupy my thoughts, that, when I was questioned about it by the officers, I totally forgot how or when I did it, and returned an answer at random. With respect to the razor sheath, I beg leave, my lord and gentlemen, to draw your particular attention. I trust you will examine this part of the evidence carefully, and say if any one could swear to a razor sheath, of which there are hundreds of a similar make and description sold daily in the metropolis. It is a common razor sheath, and has nothing whatever about it to mark it as peculiar. With respect to the edge of it being notched, I can answer it. One day, when I was alone in Mitre-street, quite unconscious of what I did, I cut the razor sheath bit by bit with the razor, and flung them in the fire. I am most anxious to satisfy you as to where I was on the evening of the 31st of December. Mary Parker and I left home that night, and proceeded together to Blackfriars-bridge. I went to the Adelphi Theatre in the Strand, and remained there until the performances were over. I then joined Charlotte in Poppin's-court, about twelve o'clock. The bells of St. Bride's were then ringing what they call the New year in. It has been said, if I was at the theatre, I could prove the fact, but it was impossible for me to do so, situated as I then was. It is not pretended that I am a hardened murderer, and if not, is it likely I could be cheerful as usual, and have supported a falsehood by bringing Mary Parker to the theatre? My possession of money, soon after the commission of the offence of which I am ac

cused, is another charge against me; but let me remind you, gentlemen, that a person living the disgraceful and irregular way in which I lived, may be one moment without a farthing, and the next possesed of money. And here, gentlemen, I must do justice to the unhappy woman who lived with me, by declaring that she

summed up the evidence, in a charge of two hours, the jury retired for about twenty minutes, and brought in a verdict ofNot guilty.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MARCH 6.

many of my offences, and that I carefully concealed them from her. There is one point I cannot pass unnoticed, I mean the letters said to be written by me in prison. The first letter I wrote, the second I know nothing about, and the third was written under the impression that I knew a person named Morris, at the White Lion, in Wych-street. As to the second letter, I only entreat that the manner in which it was obtained may be clearly stated. All I can say is, that I deny the letter. Gentlemen, without another remark, I leave my fate in your hands, under the impression that you will throw aside any prejudice that may have been excited in your minds against me.

The

man, who is dishonest, may not be cruel. The thief may shrink from the crime of murder, and I can with truth declare that this has always been the state of my mind. No propensity to cruelty, or desire to commit violence on any human being, ever formed a part of the many evil inclinations by which I have been influenced. I do solemnly declare before God, that I am innocent of the crime of which I am now accused."

Several witnesses deposed that the prisoner bore a humane cha

racter.

-After Mr. Justice Bayley had

others.

This was an indictment against Samuel Sutton, Charles William Andrews, James P. Anstes, John Edward Despard, Joseph Tindal, George Henry Gibbon, William Wright, and Charles Elton Prescott, for a conspiracy, charging the seven first-named defendants with having unlawfully conspired together, for gain and profit, to cause and procure one Edw. Drake Back to be nominated and appointed to a Cadetship, under the East India Company. Capt. Charles E. Prescott was charged with aiding and abetting the other defendants in the said conspiracy. The defendants, Sutton, Andrews, Tindal, Gibbon, and Wright pleaded guilty. The other defendants pleaded not guilty.

After the jury had been sworn an application was made to the court on the part of the defendant Anstes, that he might be at liberty to withdraw his plea of not guilty, and plead guilty. As that could not be done, the jury being sworn, a verdict of Guilty was recorded against Anstes by his consent.

The Solicitor-general then stated the case to the jury.-This prosecution was instituted by the East India Company, for the purpose of bringing to punishment persons who had been guilty of conspiring to procure a sale of the Company's patronage. A clergy

man, Dr. Back, residing at Littlehampton, in Sussex, had seen in the Morning Herald newspaper, in August, 1826, an advertise ment, announcing that an oppor tunity was offered to the parents of a respectable youth, under the age of twenty, of procuring a situation of the highest respecta bility, to go abroad; but that his outfit would require means, with out which no application need be made. Dr. Back, having a son desirous of such a situation, wrote a letter to the place to which the advertisement referred, and received an answer. Some correspondence afterwards took place. The negotiation went on to a certain extent and was at length broken off, Dr. Back being dissatisfied with it. Subsequently, in October, 1826, he received a letter requesting him to call on Mr. Wright, at Alsop's - buildings, near the Regent's - park. Accordingly Dr. Back came to London, and, having assumed, for this occasion, the name of Edwards, from motives of delicacy, called upon Mr. Wright under that name. The conversation between Dr. Back and Mr. Wright, upon that occasion, turned entirely on the nature of the employment which Mr. Wright could furnish, and the price that would be required. Mr. Wright stated it was a cadetship to India; that if it was a cavalry cadetship, the price, would be 900 guineas; and, if an infantry one, from 600 to 700 guineas. Dr. Back, felt surprised at hearing that so large a sum for the outfit would be requisite, and again abandoned all further nego tiation. He remained there till the latter end of January, 1827, and then determined to recommence the negotiation. Consider,

ing, however, that there was something irregular in this mode of proceeding, he thought it right at once to direct a letter to the chairman of the East India Company, telling him all that had taken place, and asking him distinctly and openly, whether this was a proper mode by which the patronage of the East India Company could be obtained. The chairman and deputy-chairman, to whom this letter was addressed, thinking it right that the matter should be sifted to the bottom, sent to Dr. Back a confidential officer in their service. Upon receiving from Dr. Back (whom they found to be a very respectable man) information of the whole of the circumstances, they recommended to him to continue the negotiation, in order that they might trace the different steps of it, and see whether any of the company themselves were actors in the guilt. Dr. Back, for the purpose of continuing the negotiation, as suggested by the company, wrote to Mr. Wright, stating that he was desirous of renewing the negotiation, and, in answer, he received a letter from Mr. Wright, dated the 27th of February, 1827, informing him that there was an opportunity of opening the treaty, but that, as he (Mr. Wright) was going out of town on the following day for a week, and would be absent ten days, he would commission a friend of his to attend to any communication col. Edwards might make, and begged him to address any future communication to him at No. 68, Upper Nortonstreet. Dr. Back, a short time afterwards, came to town, and addressed a note to Mr. Wright, at No. 68, Upper Norton-street, to which he received an answer from the defendant Gibbons, appointing

a meeting at two o'clock the following day, at 32, Walbrook. The meeting accordingly took place, and that conversation between Gibbons, and Dr. Back assumed the form of a distinct treaty; Gibbons stating the price of the cavalry and infantry cadetships, and the mode in which the business was to be managed. Accordingly, Dr. Back, procured from the East India Company a note of 500, in order that half of it might be deposited with Gibbons, according to his suggestion. Gibbons then furnished Dr. Back with a printed form of questions to be answered. The paper was sent to Exeter for the purpose of procuring the proper baptismal certificate. The paper, being returned to Dr. Back, was forwarded by that gentleman to Gibbons. Nothing further took place until about the 10th of April, when Gibbons wrote to Dr. Back, requesting him or the young gentleman to meet him (Gibbons) at 32, Walbrook, on the 12th, when he should be prepared to carry the business into effect. Dr. Back attended the appointment, and then produced the 500l. bank note, which was cut into halves, the one half being delivered to Gibbons and the other kept by Dr. Back. Upon that occasion a new person was introduced (the defendant Tindal); and, to the surprise of Dr. Back, he found that, in the course of two days, the half of the 500%. note had shifted into the hands of that person, who expressed some supprise that the business had not been concluded, and assured Dr. Back that very little further delay would take place, at the same time endeavouring to make an excuse for the delay that had occurred in consequence of the then state of the ministry. Dr. Back was delayed

till the 25th, when it was stated to him that matters would soon be brought to a close. Another person, Mr. Despard, was then introduced, and he expressed great. surprise that such a matter as this should have been allowed to be under the care of Mr. Gibbon and Mr. Tindal. "I will," said he, "put you into a way by which you will get it settled soon, for I shall introduce you to a highly respecta ble East India house, of which Mr. Anstes is the head partner.". But before Mr. Despard made his appearance, an application was made to Dr. Back to furnish the remainder of the money. Accordingly, on the same day. (25th of April), Dr. Back procured another note of 300l., which was treated in the same way as the 500l. note, it be ing cut into two, and half deposited with each party. This being done, Despard proposed to take Dr. Back to a person who would manage the business immediately, and Dr. Back accompanied him to Great St. Helen's, where the defendant Anstes had a countinghouse. To the surprise of. Dr. Back, Anstes stated that the half of the 500l. had been for some time in his possession, and told him, that, when the half of the 3001. was added to it, there would be no difficulty in carrying the negotiation into effect. On the 27th, Dr. Back again attended, according to appointment, at Mr. Anstes's counting-house, where he was informed that nothing had been yet completed. Despard, however, informed him, that he had sent to Regent-street, to have an interview with some person who was to get the appointment. Dr. Back expressed great astonishment at this, and inquired why a new person at this stage of the business should

be introduced, but to this he could get no satisfactory answer. On the following day, Dr. Back called again, and was informed by Despard that the business should be immediately finished; the morning of Saturday was wasting awayDr. Back called again from time to time, and at last Anstes said, "We will go together to the office of a gentleman named Andrews, in Regent-street" (another of the defendants). When they got there, Mr. Andrews was not at home, and it was arranged that they should call at his private house the following day, which was Sunday; they did so, and saw Andrews: After some conversation, it was arranged that every thing should be completed on the following day; at the same time caution was given that the strictest secrecy should be observed. On the morning of the following Tuesday (1st of May), Dr. Back received a letter from Anstes, requesting that he or the young gentleman alone should attend at Mr. Andrews's office on the following morning. Young Mr. Back accordingly attended early on the following morning, and there saw the defendant Sutton for the first time. The printed form was then put into the hands of the young man by Sutton, with a pencil mark denoting the way in which it should be filled up, and which was to contain the name of the director who had recommended him. As soon as that was done, he was told to repair to the EastIndia-house, where he would be met by Mr. Sutton and Mr. Andrews. They met first in the Monument coffee-house, where Dr. Back was also present. A discussion arose about the other halves of the notes, the defendants wishing them to be delivered to them, but which Dr. VOL. LXX.

Back objected to, until the young man had passed. This was agreed to, and the papers, having been filled up, were put into the hands of the clerks of the Cadet office, with a request that they should immediately be sent in to the committee of directors, before whom the young man was to appear. Of course, in the result, the young man was unable to pass, and the whole affair was blown up. The defendant Sutton was afterwards found at a house, called the Ship, near the East-India House, in an extremely agitated state, and declaring that he should be ruined, if the affair became known. This was the outline of the case against the first seven defendants. Captain Prescott was charged with having abused the situation he held, by having had a knowledge of what took place on the part of Sutton, and still giving to Sutton the patronage for the purpose of being disposed of. Prescott and Sutton it appeared had long been friends, and the latter had rendered the former services on some elections. On Thursday, the 26th April, capt. Prescott made an application to colonel Toone, who had been a director for thirty years, in order to lend him the appointment of a cadetship on the Madras station. This was no uncommon circumstance, and the colonel immediately complied. In the appointment of a young man to such a situation, a letter is required by the recommending party, in which he declares that he received the appointment gratuitously, and that he gives it gratuitously to such a one, with whose family and connexions he is well acquainted. Upon this occasion such a letter was written, but instead of being signed, as it ought to have been, by some per